Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[volgadon]

I love Dostoevsky. The Idiot is next on my list. That's one I have yet to read.

I like the Idiot even better than the BK.

[Darren10]

Maybe when Jesus said no one has seen the Father's shape that's because he doesn't have a shape. Or maybe he was speaking allegorically. Or maybe he meant it literally, as you supposed. Hard to say. People don't agree on what that verse means, not even Bible scholars who can read greek.

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

(Mathew 18)

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

(Acts 7)

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

(Romans 8 )

Compared with:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

(2 Corinthians 4)

and:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(Genesis 1)

and...

6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

(Genesis 9)

Ofg Christ's divine mage:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

(Philipians 2)

Compared with:

20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

(Philipians 3)

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(Hebrews 1)

There's plenty of scritural evidence to conclude that the Father has a specified image or "form" and that form is always described as anthrpomorphic.

What of Joseph Smith and others who have seen the Father? How do they describe Him?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

That's right. The Son is Incarnate; the Father is not. But the distinction is irrelevant as there is only one God, not three. Jesus is God in the flesh.

Ummm, isn't Jesus' body material?

[MormonMason]

Yeah I think you nailed the problem, that is why our belief in an anthropomorphic God is at the crux of this issue, and I have a lot of faith in your average Christian, and I think that despite the creeds the average Christian carries around in his head the vision of Heavenly Father as a very vigorous grandfather who is stern but loving. And if asked what they really thought of the Trinitarian doctrine they would say they were without a clue what that doublespeak means.

"It is a divine mystery beyond all human comprehension!"

[Darren10]

That's right. The Son is Incarnate; the Father is not. But the distinction is irrelevant as there is only one God, not three. Jesus is God in the flesh.

So Jesus you can hug, the Father you cannot yet there's only one being. My question is that if you hug Jesus are you hugging the being? If so, aren't you hugging God?

Or, it opens the need for a Tradition delivered by the apostles to the bishops and church councils guided by the Spirit. We've come full circle.

I agree. I think our tangents have run its course.

[MormonMason]

That's right. The Son is Incarnate; the Father is not. But the distinction is irrelevant as there is only one God, not three....

The interesting thing is that the author of Hebrews stated that the Son is the exact representation of the Father's nature. Good luck with that if the Father is not corporeal as the Son is. As to the "one God" thing, the earliest Christians did not wrangle too much over that. Justin Martyr, for example, was not afraid to refer to Christ as a "second God" and "another God." In Origen's time there were still Christians, including himself, who were not afraid to refer to Father and Son as "two Gods in one sense and one God in another sense."

Even in the Bible you have the resurrected Son, who is God, speak of the Father as "my" God. Paul stated that God the Father was the God of our Lord Jesus Christ (think of the meaning of the phrase "the God of" in phrases like "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Israel" and so forth). Curiously, the author of Ecclesiastes instructs the reader to "remember now your Creators" (plural), but, sadly, the English translations tend to mask that from the reader by turning it into a singular. And, even the author of Hebrews quoted a Psalm to have Father and Son each a God. The text has God state "O God" with reference to the Son, and then turns around and says "God, even your God" anointed the Son. (See Hebrews 1:8-9). "O God" plus "your God" equals two Gods when you take the text at face value.

No member of the Trinity logically can say he has a God or that one or another of the persons is his God, since, according to that late doctrine, all are equally God himself and consubstantial.

Edited May 23, 2013 by MormonMason

[Darren10]

Injecting materiality is just as philosophical. The NT text is ambiguous and we all bring philosophy and assumptions to it.

Was Jesus' body, essential for ur atonement, material? If so, how is it far fetched to conclude that the Father is material? I know there's the passage of "God is a spirit". You obviously know I find that a bad translation but I do realize that is, as written, a means to believe in immateriality. Nevertheless, Jesus lived corporeally materially (not of the world), and was resurrected materially. Yet I don't think you find Him limited.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. For us, uncreated means always existing. Eternal means the same. Both terms apply to the uncreated life outside time and space.

Just how a person / being ca be both created ("formed" or "shaped") and exist eternally. Being "created", especially in the ancient Hebrew sense, does not inherently mean one did not exist at all before that creation. Ex nihilo is very difficult ot justify biblically.

The late Professor Roland K. Harrison once noted that, although the notion of creation ex nihilo was "too abstract for the [Hebrew] mind to entertain" and was not so stated in the first chapter of Genesis, "it is certainly implicit in the narrative."¹⁶ The genial professor's observations notwithstanding, I find no clear evidence from the Old Testament of such a belief in ancient Israel. While traditional Christian biblical scholars have generally understood the meaning of the Hebrew verb bārāʾ to imply creation from nothing, Shalom Paul asserts that "the verb brʾ used in the very first sentence of the creation story does not imply, as most traditional commentators believed, creatio ex nihilo but a concept that ... denotes, as it does throughout the Bible, a divine activity effortlessly effected."¹⁷ Indeed, the very phrasing of the first verses of Genesis argues against the idea of creation ex nihilo. If the first clause in Genesis, bərēšît bārāʾ, is understood as an adverbial phrase, the notion of creation from nothing implied in Genesis 1:1–3 disappears: "When God set about to create heaven and earth—the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water—God said, 'Let there be light.'"¹⁸ After an extensive discussion of these verses and against his own orthodox Jewish background, which accepts the doctrine of ex nihilo creation, Ephraim A. Speiser feels obliged to observe in an indirect way: "To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that the creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter," which amounts to a roundabout denial of ex nihilo creation.¹⁹ Even a modern Catholic theologian can no longer assert that "the first Genesis account expressly teaches that God created all things out of nothing. The notion of 'nothing' was unimaginable to the unphilosophical author."²⁰ Job 38:3–11 NIV gives an important building analogy that supports the idea of creation from preexisting matter:

Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone

while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,

when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,

when I said, "This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt"?

This passage in Job argues against creation ex nihilo and in favor of creation from matter—from sea and cloud. It uses the analogy of building—marking the dimensions, stretching a measuring line, setting footings, laying the cornerstones—and reveals an ambivalence toward the sea and a concern that the waters be controlled, concepts that are also found in texts from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

http://maxwellinstit...#38;chapid=1113

Gen 1 does not teach creatio ex nihilo. It does not narrate the creation of an inchoate earth, the waters of the abyss, the darkness which covered the abyss, or the wind that hovered over said waters; all of the above pre-exist the first creative fiat the narrator recounts: "Let there be light!" (Gen 1:2-3). It does not explain the existence of divine beings apart from God and apart from creation, those included in the "Let us make man" of Gen 1:26. But Gen 1 does teach what creatio ex nihilo teaches: that the universe is, without remainder, the product of a sovereign infinite singularity, referred to as "God." In Gen 1, there is no place for a power in heaven or earth comparable to that of the sole deity described throughout as the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth.

University of Chicago theologian Langdon Gilkey argued that the notion of creatio ex nihilo is a bulwark against metaphysical dualism - the idea that the way things are is the product of two principles, good and evil, with evil a fundamental reality no less than good. On this view, the nature and nurture of human beings comes to concrete expression in the clash of conflicting powers each of which is its own final arbiter. In the polytheism of ancient Israel's environment, there were not two but any number of supernal powers at odds with each other, whose fortunes fall and rise.

http://ancienthebrew...-genesis-1.html

Ok, as long as the LDS belief is that "man can become just like God because God is a man and is of the same species as men" then I agree. That phrase is strange amongst Christians except for the LDS.

No. If I were to tell you "man can become God" than you would say "of course but man cannot be loke God because God's essence is different than man's and man will never have God's essence." Under that guise than how can man 'become God' if man cannot become God?

Yes, that's what I was taught when I was LDS.

And you believe it as Orthodox as well.

Or, it opens the need for a Tradition delivered by the apostles to the bishops and church councils guided by the Spirit. We've come full circle.

That requires living revelation as well. Also, if a teaching came directly from Christ's Apotles than such teachings would be doctrine, not mere "Tradition", would it not?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Darren10

[Stone holm]

The confusion you perceive only follows if you first assume that the Father is embodied and adopt a materialist cosmos.

Well the confusion is over whether Jesus still has a body, and if the Father is incoporeal then why would we spend so much time celebrating the resurrection?

[Hannah Rebekah]

Are you suggesting that the RCC originally did not teach theosis? Does the restoration claim only apply to the RCC and its offshoots?

In my reading, Ash's argument was that Joseph Smith restored lost teachings and his article provided a list of such teachings, one of which was theosis. Ash runs through the list, then says "These and other authentic ancient Christian teachings were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith because he sought the Lord in study and prayer...Teachings which had been lost after the demise of the early Apostles were once again given to the Saints of Christ’s restored Church." It seems clear that Ash thinks the teaching of theosis was lost. So, why is he quoting trinitarians as evidence that the LDS doctrine of theosis was taught in the early church before the demise of the Apostles?

The context for the Restoration was in the mist of Protestants who had lost the understanding of theosis. It's very interesting when Protestants and Evangelical are just now stating to admit that "their theology is incomplete" and what they need to do to change that.

For an Evangelical Theosis: A Historical Theology of Theosis in Athanasius's De Incarnatione Verbi De

(quote)

"If Protestants truly desire to have fellowship with Catholics and engage in ecumenical dialogue, integrating theosis into our atonement theories is a significant first step.

"The second major area that I believe theosis will benefit modern Evangelical theology is providing a rehabilitation for what may be potentially a flawed soteriological model. I say that it is flawed not so much because the components of the model are incorrect. Rather, it seems to me that they are incomplete."

"....it seems to me that they [their theology] are incomplete."

If theosis was never lost to Protestants and Evangelicals then why are they trying to rehabilitate their beliefs to fit with this ancient belief?

First, Mormons are berated for believing that "man can become a god." When shown that this ancient Christian doctrine and is taught in the Bible we get accused of misrepresenting the Bible. When it's shown that the Church Fathers also taught this doctrine then we were accused of quoting the Church Father's in the wrong context. When shown that the Greek Orthodox have preserved this doctrine as did the Catholics only with less emphasis we are accused that their doctrine of theosis is different than our doctrine of thosis (exaltation) by using a completely different subject of the trinity to blur the issues which the Mormons do differ in this area...apples and oranges. Now we get Protestants and Evangelicals proving the claims of the Mormons and writing about and how today they are missing this ancient Christian doctrine.

These quotes speak to this thought that this ancient doctrine is missing from the traditional Protestant and Evangelical Christian Churches.

…the concept of deification has been a popular one from the beginning of the Christian church. And modern writers are in fact beginning to ask why their church is not teaching it as doctrine. Lutheran scholar Robert Jenson, in an article in a Lutheran journal on the very topic of theosis, concludes by asking:“Perhaps the question has at least become a bit more urgent: The patristic church proclaimed deification; why do not we?”(Robert W. Jenson,“Theosis,” in Dialog: A Journal of Theology 32 (St. Paul, Minn: 1993): 108-112, at page 112.)

Robert Rakestraw, writing in the journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, after covering some of the evidence from the Greek fathers, as well as from Luther, and Charles Wesley, then writes:“Perhaps the most obvious deficiency is the terminology itself. To speak of divinization, deification, and human beings ‘becoming God’ seems to violate the historic Christian understanding of the essential qualitative distinction between God and the creation…. The strengths of theosis theology outweigh these weaknesses, however. The most significant benefit is that the concept as a whole, if not the specific terminology, is Biblical.”(Rakestraw, op. cit., 266-7.)

It's perfectly ironic that Protestants and Evangelicals today are now beginning to reach back into their own history to show that they have indeed "had" a past in the belief of theosis in their theological tradition that "man can become god." It's unfortunate that this has been one of the issues anti-Mormons have used to berat the LDS Church as a false gospel.

"The GreatestPossible Blessing: Calvin and Deification"

Luther and Theosis

THEOSIS INCHRYSOSTOM AND WESLEY: AN EASTERN PARADIGM ON FAITH AND LOVE

(scroll down the page to find)

Theosis among someAnglicans

For an EvangelicalTheosis: A Historical Theology of Theosis in Athanasius’s De Incarnatione VerbiDei

[Spammer]

(Mathew 18)

(Acts 7)

(Romans 8 )

Compared with:

(2 Corinthians 4)

and:

(Genesis 1)

and...

(Genesis 9)

Ofg Christ's divine mage:

(Philipians 2)

Compared with:

(Philipians 3)

(Hebrews 1)

There's plenty of scritural evidence to conclude that the Father has a specified image or "form" and that form is always described as anthrpomorphic.

What of Joseph Smith and others who have seen the Father? How do they describe Him?

Are all of the verses intended to be interpreted literally or allegorically? How do you know? What was the intention of the authors? How do you know? The interpretive framework you bring to the text, even if reading the original greek, governs the way those questions are answered. LDS church members assume an Apostasy and Restoration so the references to the Father's "face", "shape", "image", and "form" are interpreted literally. The Catholic-Orthodox tradition interprets those same references allegorically.

The Joseph Smith example only has relevance for those who believe he really did see the Father in the grove.

Quoting scriptures back and forth is pointless. The real issue is whether there was an Apostasy of the primitive church. It's not my intent in this thread to debate these issues. I was only seeking to understand why Mormons quote the ECFs so frequently, since all of the typically quoted church fathers are firmly within the Catholic-Orthodox tradition. The apologists, if they don't first make that fact clear, are quoting those church fathers out of context. I was only exploring that issue and I think that endeavor has run its course.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Ummm, isn't Jesus' body material?

Yes. The one God in three persons resides immaterially beyond/outside time and space. The second person entered the material creation and took on matter. He became one of us. Jesus's body is therefore material. His resurrected, glorified body is also material. The matter of his body has been divinized. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not enter the material creation in this way, becoming incarnate as the Son did by taking on matter in the form of human flesh. The Son did this to heal His creation, reconcile us to the Father, and destroy death by His death. Until Pentecost, we'll sing the Paschal Troparion at the beginning of every service and at the start of our personal prayers: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death; and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." This action of Christ becoming man opened the door to our own divinization. Our bodies, spirits, and souls will be similarly divinized (note that the ancient Christian tradition uses this tripartite division of the human person). The teaching is that divinized matter is able to transcend space and time. C.S. Lewis, a devout trinitarian, wrote an allegory that attempts to imagine what such an existence could be like. It's called "The Great Divorce". Great book.

[Darren10]

Hannah Rebekah;

Perhaps the most obvious deficiency is the terminology itself. To speak of divinization, deification, and human beings ‘becoming God’ seems to violate the historic Christian understanding of the essential qualitative distinction between God and the creation

EXACTLY!!! Thus, Christians outside of the LDS need to place qualfiers on that statement in order for it to be compatible with the acceptance that God is species-unique. Among the LDS, it is not necessary to make sch qualifications for within the LDS God is believed to be the same species as man, or (much) more appropriately phrased, man is of the same species of God. God is our Father and we are created in His image. Divine inheritance is ours and thus eternal potential from the grace of God through His Son.

[Darren10]

Are all of the verses intended to be interpreted literally or allegorically? How do you know? What was the intention of the authors? How do you know? The interpretive framework you bring to the text, even if reading the original greek, governs the way those questions are answered. LDS church members assume an Apostasy and Restoration so the references to the Father's "face", "shape", "image", and "form" are interpreted literally. The Catholic-Orthodox tradition interprets those same references allegorically.

You're correct in that difference. Which of the patristic fathers saw the Father to say authoratatively that these scriptures are allegorical? Joseph Smith saw the Father face to face and as noted thereligion legally founded by him does not believe these passages are allegorical but literal.

The Joseph Smith example only has relevance for those who believe he really did see the Father in the grove.

That goes without saying. This statement holds true for all aspects of theological belief of all faiths.

Quoting scriptures back and forth is pointless.

\

True enough in the sense of convincing who is right and who is wrong. That part's done intimately by the Spirit. My point is that there's ample biblical scripture to conclude that the Father has a definite form. Thus I say that it is only philosophy which dictates He does not and that philosophy is used to supercede scriptural doctrine. I do not think that's the proper role of philosophy in religion.

since all of the typically quoted church fathers are firmly within the Catholic-Orthodox tradition. The apologists, if they don't first make that fact clear, are quoting those church fathers out of context. I was only exploring that issue and I think that endeavor has run its course.

Pre-mortal existence and baptism for the dead are NOT within the Catholic-Orthodox traditions. Both have been explicitly rejected by the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

[Darren10]

Yes. The one God in three persons resides immaterially beyond/outside time and space.

Yes, that is true according to trinitarian / creedal beliefs. However, my point was that Jesus being material does not limit His eternal abilities. Thus I find flaw in the philosophy that God is immaterial and must by. If anything, the fact that Christian doctrine is firmly rooted in Jesus having a material body and using it to glorify the Father who also glorified Him, philosophy surrounding divine corpoeality, t seems, should conclude, or at least lean to conclude of the necessity for a material body and to use it to glorify the Father and the Son as per Jesus' own teachings and examples. Concluding that God is immaterial and Jesus is one person in three of the being God is outside biblical doctrine and while applicable to several passages of the Bible, the bible makes much more sense under the theological orthodoxy of the material body being necessary for one's spiritual growth and that the Son and the Father are two separate beings and together are united as "One Eternal God".

The matter of his body has been divinized.

Thus through Him, so will our (corrupt) material.

The Father and the Holy Spirit did not enter the material creation in this way, becoming incarnate as the Son did by taking on matter in the form of human flesh. The Son did this to heal His creation, reconcile us to the Father, and destroy death by His death. Until Pentecost, we'll sing the Paschal Troparion at the beginning of every service and at the start of our personal prayers: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death; and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." This action of Christ becoming man opened the door to our own divinization. Our bodies, spirits, and souls will be similarly divinized (note that the ancient Christian tradition uses this tripartite division of the human person). The teaching is that divinized matter is able to transcend space and time. C.S. Lewis, a devout trinitarian, wrote an allegory that attempts to imagine what such an existence could be like. It's called "The Great Divorce". Great book.

As a whole, I'd agree with the theology of this citated paragraph. It's a great argument towards te similiarities between man and God, Jesus being the central figure to complete man's progress toward God / godlihood. There's still more in order to inherit "[*all*] the Father has" but in and of itself, I agree to what you just stated.

[Spammer]

Was Jesus' body, essential for ur atonement, material? If so, how is it far fetched to conclude that the Father is material? I know there's the passage of "God is a spirit". You obviously know I find that a bad translation but I do realize that is, as written, a means to believe in immateriality. Nevertheless, Jesus lived corporeally materially (not of the world), and was resurrected materially. Yet I don't think you find Him limited.

Yes, Jesus's incarnation was essential. It's not far-fetched to conclude that the Father could be material. Should he choose to do so, the Father could do what the Son did and enter the material creation, take on matter, and become one of us. Our belief is that the Father did not do this; it was unnecessary. The Father did not do this; the Son did. Only one Incarnation was necessary. God the Son chose to do this. The Creator of matter took on matter to heal matter and reverse the effects of the Fall in humanity. That entailed that the Creator become human. Every aspect of fallen man needed healing, thus the Creator needed to take on fallen human nature in its fullness, including death, in order to heal that nature. “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved” - St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian).

Just how a person / being ca be both created ("formed" or "shaped") and exist eternally. Being "created", especially in the ancient Hebrew sense, does not inherently mean one did not exist at all before that creation. Ex nihilo is very difficult ot justify biblically.

What is considered biblical varies based on the tradition you adhere to. Divorced from an authoritative interpretive framework, anyone can interpret the biblical texts any way they choose. There will be as many interpretations as there are interpreters. This is sola scriptura and the protestant approach. Our belief in the difference between God and humans is rooted in what we believe is the Apostolic Tradition, which notes a stark difference between uncreated and created. For us, created does not mean formed.

No. If I were to tell you "man can become God" than you would say "of course but man cannot be loke God because God's essence is different than man's and man will never have God's essence." Under that guise than how can man 'become God' if man cannot become God?

LDS believe man will become exactly like the Father and Jesus, who are separate beings, and like the Father of the Father, and that Father's Father, etc., ad infinitum, unless you're one of those Mormons who believe the exalted man who is Heavenly Father is uncreated and has always been an exalted, glorified man living within space and time unchanged for all eternity. We believe man will be like God, but not exactly like God since there is only one God. We will exactly like Jesus, divinized humans, but not like God Himself - a single divine essence in three persons.

And you believe it as Orthodox as well.

Yes, true. We do not believe, however, that our divinization will add any additional glory to God. God is infinite and perfect. He already possess all glory and all perfection. Nothing can be added that He does not already possess.

That requires living revelation as well. Also, if a teaching came directly from Christ's Apotles than such teachings would be doctrine, not mere "Tradition", would it not?

Yes, the doctrine of the apostles was passed to the bishops and is transmitted in the deposit of Holy Tradition.

[Spammer]

Hannah Rebekah;

EXACTLY!!! Thus, Christians outside of the LDS need to place qualfiers on that statement in order for it to be compatible with the acceptance that God is species-unique. Among the LDS, it is not necessary to make sch qualifications for within the LDS God is believed to be the same species as man, or (much) more appropriately phrased, man is of the same species of God. God is our Father and we are created in His image. Divine inheritance is ours and thus eternal potential from the grace of God through His Son.

The essential qualitative distinction Hannah Rebekah notes is bridged through God's energies. Our divinization occurs through participation in the energies of God, which are God himself acting within His creation. See Maximos the Confessor and Gregory Palamas for more.

[Spammer]

You're correct in that difference. Which of the patristic fathers saw the Father to say authoratatively that these scriptures are allegorical? Joseph Smith saw the Father face to face and as noted thereligion legally founded by him does not believe these passages are allegorical but literal.

That's right. It comes down to whether you accept Joseph Smith's testimony. The greek fathers used pagan greek thought to think through issues such as immateriality/materiality, form and substance, first cause, etc. They agreed with certain greek philosophers that the first cause must be immaterial. I agree with them. Again, it all depends on one's a priori assumptions. Everything starts with philosophy; even the statement "I don't start with philosophy, I start with the literal meaning of texts" is at root an a priori decision. Mormons are correct when they say the ECFs interpreted the scriptures through the lends of greek philosphophy.

That goes without saying. This statement holds true for all aspects of theological belief of all faiths.

Agreed.

True enough in the sense of convincing who is right and who is wrong. That part's done intimately by the Spirit. My point is that there's ample biblical scripture to conclude that the Father has a definite form. Thus I say that it is only philosophy which dictates He does not and that philosophy is used to supercede scriptural doctrine. I do not think that's the proper role of philosophy in religion.

Yes, it's the Spirit that converts. I agree that there's ample biblical scripture to arrive at your conclusion, assuming that your premise of the truth of Joseph Smith's vision is accepted.

Pre-mortal existence and baptism for the dead are NOT within the Catholic-Orthodox traditions. Both have been explicitly rejected by the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Agreed. Not everything taught by certain Catholic-Orthodox church fathers was accepted by the body of the church, meeting in church councils guided by the Spirit, as belonging to the deposit of faith.

[Spammer]

Yes, that is true according to trinitarian / creedal beliefs. However, my point was that Jesus being material does not limit His eternal abilities. Thus I find flaw in the philosophy that God is immaterial and must by. If anything, the fact that Christian doctrine is firmly rooted in Jesus having a material body and using it to glorify the Father who also glorified Him, philosophy surrounding divine corpoeality, t seems, should conclude, or at least lean to conclude of the necessity for a material body and to use it to glorify the Father and the Son as per Jesus' own teachings and examples. Concluding that God is immaterial and Jesus is one person in three of the being God is outside biblical doctrine and while applicable to several passages of the Bible, the bible makes much more sense under the theological orthodoxy of the material body being necessary for one's spiritual growth and that the Son and the Father are two separate beings and together are united as "One Eternal God".

We also believe that being material does not limit Jesus' divine abilities. God cannot be limited. I think the flaw you perceive lies in the fact that perhaps you think we believe that the Father cannot be material. We don't believe this. The Father can become incarnate should he choose to do so. We believe only the Son was incarnate. Only one incarnation of God is required and it was the Son who did this.

Thus through Him, so will our (corrupt) material.

That's correct. That's what we believe.

As a whole, I'd agree with the theology of this citated paragraph. It's a great argument towards te similiarities between man and God, Jesus being the central figure to complete man's progress toward God / godlihood. There's still more in order to inherit "[*all*] the Father has" but in and of itself, I agree to what you just stated.

We really aren't all that far apart. We Orthodox (and Catholics, too) believe we will become just like Jesus, with the caveat that Jesus is the God-Man, two natures (divine and human) in one person (we don't believe Jesus is half-God, half-man; he is fully God, fully man). We will be divinized men retaining only our one human nature.

[Darren10]

Yes, Jesus's incarnation was essential. It's not far-fetched to conclude that the Father could be material. Should he choose to do so, the Father could do what the Son did and enter the material creation, take on matter, and become one of us. Our belief is that the Father did not do this; it was unnecessary. The Father did not do this; the Son did. Only one Incarnation was necessary. God the Son chose to do this. The Creator of matter took on matter to heal matter and reverse the effects of the Fall in humanity. That entailed that the Creator become human. Every aspect of fallen man needed healing, thus the Creator needed to take on fallen human nature in its fullness, including death, in order to heal that nature. “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved” - St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian).

Thus not only does material not limit God but it glorifies God.

What is considered biblical varies based on the tradition you adhere to. Divorced from an authoritative interpretive framework, anyone can interpret the biblical texts any way they choose. There will be as many interpretations as there are interpreters. This is sola scriptura and the protestant approach. Our belief in the difference between God and humans is rooted in what we believe is the Apostolic Tradition, which notes a stark difference between uncreated and created. For us, created does not mean formed.

Here:

7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

8 ¶Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.

9 Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.

13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

14 ¶Thus saith the Lord, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.

(Isaiah 43)

Note a few things here. First, this is in hte context of "creation". Second, the person speaking is Jesus Christ who is "LORD", "savior", "redeemer", and the "Holy One of Israel". Third, the word "formed" is used in direct meaning of "create" - "for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him" (verse 7). Forth, there was no God "formed" before Jesus. Note here that while there are those among the LDS who believe in infinite regression (God having a God, having a God, having a God, etc) and while that makes sense to me, doctrinally-speakng, it has no part in LDS faith or worship. All accounts of the creation: Genesis, the Pearl of Great Price, parts of the Book of Mormon, parts of the Doctrine and Convenants, and the LDS temple, all have the Father existing as He is today "in the beginning". All LDS theology begins wih the Father. Jesus was the "firstborn of many" "in the beginning" and doctrinally, no God was "formed" before Him. No God will be "formed" after him for so far as I can tell, "God" is not "formed" or "created" but beings "become God", thus the pan of salvation which created this world and placed Jesus Christ centrally in our progress toward "becoming God".

Our belief in the difference between God and humans is rooted in what we believe is the Apostolic Tradition, which notes a stark difference between uncreated and created.

Makes me curious since the Bible does not make any such stark contrasts only that God was in the beginning as an exalted being.

Yes, the doctrine of the apostles was passed to the bishops and is transmitted in the deposit of Holy Tradition.

Sounds good. I just do not view teachings from Jesus tothe Apostles to man as *mere* tradition but doctrine. Tradition does indeed have part of the doctrinal preservation but the word "doctrine" to me seems more sound and grounded in eternal truth.

[Darren10]

The essential qualitative distinction Hannah Rebekah notes is bridged through God's energies.

Again, the Bible does not teach that man will receive "God's energies" but "all the Father has".

Our divinization occurs through participation in the energies of God, which are God himself acting within His creation.

I'd like to know the origin of this teaching so thanks for the references.

[Spammer]

Thus not only does material not limit God but it glorifies God.

I agree, with the caveat that God already possesses all glory. There isn't any more glory that God does not already possess. The glorification of God is on our part. We glorify him for becoming one of us to save us.

Here:

(Isaiah 43)

Note a few things here. First, this is in hte context of "creation". Second, the person speaking is Jesus Christ who is "LORD", "savior", "redeemer", and the "Holy One of Israel". Third, the word "formed" is used in direct meaning of "create" - "for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him" (verse 7). Forth, there was no God "formed" before Jesus. Note here that while there are those among the LDS who believe in infinite regression (God having a God, having a God, having a God, etc) and while that makes sense to me, doctrinally-speakng, it has no part in LDS faith or worship. All accounts of the creation: Genesis, the Pearl of Great Price, parts of the Book of Mormon, parts of the Doctrine and Convenants, and the LDS temple, all have the Father existing as He is today "in the beginning". All LDS theology begins wih the Father. Jesus was the "firstborn of many" "in the beginning" and doctrinally, no God was "formed" before Him. No God will be "formed" after him for so far as I can tell, "God" is not "formed" or "created" but beings "become God", thus the pan of salvation which created this world and placed Jesus Christ centrally in our progress toward "becoming God".

Your interpretation of Isaiah is very compatible with Orthodox belief, assuming you begin with the Father as uncreated. See, we're not that far apart.

A digression - I was an active Utah Mormon from my first memories until I was in my early thirties (I went inactive in the late 1990s). That includes four years of seminary and a mission. When ever the topic of God's origin came up in my presence or in earshot, everyone without exception (family, leaders, companions, teachers, friends, General Authorities) believed that God had a Father and believed in the KFD teaching that God was once a man. The idea that all of that might just be speculation seems shocking to me.

Makes me curious since the Bible does not make any such stark contrasts only that God was in the beginning as an exalted being.

You have to keep in mind that the Catholic-Orthodox tradition is not Bible alone. Even though Tradition came first, we accept Tradition and the Bible as equally working together to define the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles. Catholics believe the same. The Orthodox limit the doctrinal content of Tradition to the Bible, teachings handed down from the apostles, and the first seven ecumenical councils, the councils that preceded the Catholic-Orthodox split 1000 years ago.

Sounds good. I just do not view teachings from Jesus tothe Apostles to man as *mere* tradition but doctrine. Tradition does indeed have part of the doctrinal preservation but the word "doctrine" to me seems more sound and grounded in eternal truth.

We view Tradition as containing the doctrine of the apostles and the rites and practices surrounding the Liturgy and Christian life. Signing with the cross; church buildings facing east; use of incense; icons; church canons; anointings; facing east to pray; praying morning and evening; fasting on Wednesdays, Fridays, during Lent, the Nativity Fast, the Apostles Fast; etc. etc.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Again, the Bible does not teach that man will receive "God's energies" but "all the Father has".

I'd like to know the origin of this teaching so thanks for the references.

I'm glad I could help. The Orthodox believe that God's energies contain "all the Father has". They are God Himself. John Meyendorff's book "St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality" is a good summary.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Darren10]

That's right. It comes down to whether you accept Joseph Smith's testimony. The greek fathers used pagan greek thought to think through issues such as immateriality/materiality, form and substance, first cause, etc.

LoL - No argument there. Joseph Smith used the Bible and the direct voice of God via the Spirit and theophanies for guidance.

They agreed with certain greek philosophers that the first cause must be immaterial.

Based off of what? The word of images? That immateriality is "perfection"? If so, Jesus hardly became imperfect through taking upon Himself material.

Again, it all depends on one's a priori assumptions.

Tureenough. What part of the bible played a role in the Greek Father's conclusions on immateriality?

Everything starts with philosophy

Adam and Eve didn't so why should we?

Mormons are correct when they say the ECFs interpreted the scriptures through the lends of greek philosphophy.

No argument there.

Agreed. Not everything taught by certain Catholic-Orthodox church fathers was accepted by the body of the church, meeting in church councils guided by the Spirit, as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Not at all that I'm a person to place a timetable on God';s and His divine will, but it seems to have taken the Holy Spirit quite a long time to get the message through to the councils regarding false doctrines popularly taught in the Christian Church. But, likewise, the same holds true for blacks and the priesthood in LDS history.

[Flyonthewall]

Immaterial...what does that mean? How can something that is immaterial have substance? Wouldn't the substance be a type of material...thus it cannot be immaterial...?

If something is immaterial, does that mean it is like a thought? or an idea? or a philosophy? I can see those being immaterial and without substance...but then someone else has to generate them, and that doesn't fit what is being said.

In the LDS view, everything is made up of material or matter. A spirit is material made of matter more refined.

So when a non-LDS person says God is immaterial... That is like saying God does not exist...or is only a thought, idea, or philosophy that does not exist independently.

So what does "immaterial" mean?

(sorry if this doesn't fit this thread, or if it is a given that is already understood by the majority)

[Spammer]

LoL - No argument there. Joseph Smith used the Bible and the direct voice of God via the Spirit and theophanies for guidance.

I knew you'd enjoy that. It can't be denied. The difference is that the greek church fathers didn't reject philosophy out of hand just because it was pagan. The way LDS view Luther, Williams and Calvin is how the fathers viewed the philosophers: as using the mind and God-endowed reason to discover eternal truths about the nature of reality, paving the way for the Christian revelation. It's all about what happens when you use reason alone to determine what the nature of reality is. I happen to agree that such a philosophical endeavor is valid and important. That's just one reason why I'm Orthodox and not a Buddhist.

Based off of what? The word of images? That immateriality is "perfection"? If so, Jesus hardly became imperfect through taking upon Himself material.

Based on reasoning from observation back to first principles.

Tureenough. What part of the bible played a role in the Greek Father's conclusions on immateriality?

I'd say the Greek fathers, especially Justin, Clement, and Origen, interpreted the Bible through the lens of philosophy, but they began from the fact of the Incarnation of Christ - God in the Flesh. They used philosophy to try to understand God's nature, but rejected anything in greek thought that sought to impose an absolute unbridgeable, qualitative divide between God and man. The Orthodox Church has rejected such neoplatonism, by the way. That was Palamas's contribution. His work was the basis for that final rejection.

Adam and Eve didn't so why should we?

I view Adam and Eve as figurative. The Garden of Eden cycle contains stories told by a pre-philosophical people, which contain eternal truths. (cue the sound of a can of worms opening)

Not at all that I'm a person to place a timetable on God';s and His divine will, but it seems to have taken the Holy Spirit quite a long time to get the message through to the councils regarding false doctrines popularly taught in the Christian Church. But, likewise, the same holds true for blacks and the priesthood in LDS history.

Our view of our church councils is not that they decided on truth, but they clarified what had always been taught. They met in response to the emergence of some heretical innovation and the official statements were formulated to respond to the nature of the innovation.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer